US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      US agriculture department tells states to ‘undo’ Snap benefits for families in need

      by

      The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is directing states to “immediately undo” any steps that have been taken to send out full food aid benefits to low-income Americans, following a supreme court order on Friday that temporarily halted a lower court order requiring those payments.The USDA’s directive, issued in a memo on Saturday, followed a supreme court order granting the Trump administration’s emergency request to pause an order for the USDA to provide full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) benefits during the ongoing federal government shutdown, which is now in its 40th day.That lower court ruling, issued on Thursday, ordered the Trump administration to fully fund the Snap program for November by Friday, rather than issuing only partial benefits. The ruling led to some of the roughly 42 million Americans enrolled in Snap – commonly known as food stamps – to begin receiving their full benefits on Friday from the states, which issue the payments of federal dollars.But on Friday night, the program was thrown into chaos again when the supreme courtagreed to temporarily pause the order to allow an appeals court to review the Trump administration’s appeal.In response to the supreme court’s decision, the USDA, which delivers the money to the states, issued its directive that any payments that had been made under the prior orders are considered “unauthorized”.“To the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” Patrick Penn, the deputy undersecretary of agriculture, wrote to state Snap directors. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025.”The memo warned: “Failure to comply with this memorandum may results in USDA taking various actions, including cancellation of the Federal share of State administration costs and holding States liable for any overissuances that result from the noncompliance.”As the Associated Press reports, it remains unclear if the directive applies to states using their some of their own funds to sustain the program, or just to ones relying entirely on federal money. The USDA did not immediately respond to a request for clarification from the AP.Lisa Murkowski, a Republican senator for Alaska, said it would be “shocking” if the order applied to states using their own money to support the program.“It’s one thing if the federal government is going to continue its level of appeal through the courts to say, ‘No, this can’t be done,’” Murkowski told the AP. “But when you are telling the states that have said this is a significant enough issue in our state, we’re going to find resources, backfill or front load, whatever term you want, to help our people, those states should not be penalized.”On Sunday several state leaders criticized the memo.Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, Tony Evers, refused to abide by the directive.“No,” Evers said in a statement responding to the memo. “Pursuant to and consistent with an active court order, Wisconsin legally loaded benefits to cards, ensuring nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, including nearly 270,000 kids, had access to basic food and groceries.”He added that the Trump administration had “assured Wisconsin and other states that they were actively working to implement full SNAP benefits for November and would ‘complete the processes necessary to make funds available”, adding that “they have failed to do so to date.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Our administration is actively in court fighting against the Trump administration’s efforts to yank food assistance away from Wisconsin’s kids, families and seniors and we are eager for the court to resolve this issue by directing the Trump administration to comply with court orders and provide the certainty to the many Wisconsin families and businesses who rely on FoodShare,” Evers said.Maura Healey, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts, also condemned the directive in a statement on Sunday, saying: “If President Trump wants to penalize states for preventing Americans from going hungry, we will see him in court.”“Massachusetts residents with funds on their cards should continue to spend it on food” she said. “These funds were processed in accordance with guidance we received from the Trump Administration and a lower court order, and they were processed before the Supreme Court order on Friday night.”“President Trump should be focusing on reopening the government that he controls instead of repeatedly fighting to take away food from American families,” she added.Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic senator for Minnesota, also criticized the memo, saying that “cruelty is the point”, adding: “It is their choice to do this.”Associated Press and Reuters contributed reporting More

    • 150 Shares93 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump weighs giving Americans $2,000 from tariff revenues in bid for support

      by

      Donald Trump on Sunday mused about giving most Americans $2,000 funded by tariff revenues collected by the president’s administration – an evident bid to rally public support on the issue.“A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Sunday.The post also made it a point to call people against tariffs “FOOLS!”For such a plan to take effect, congressional approval would likely be required. Earlier this year, Republican senator Josh Hawley of Missouri introduced a bill proposing $600 in tariff rebates for nearly all Americans and their dependent children.“Americans deserve a tax rebate after four years of [Joe] Biden [White House] policies that have devastated families’ savings and livelihoods,” Hawley said at the time. He said the legislation would “allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump’s tariffs are returning to this country”.However, US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said in August that the administration’s main focus remains reducing the national debt, which stands at $38.12tn, using funds from tariff collections. He said the money would be used first to start paying down the federal debt – not to give rebate checks to Americans.According to the treasury department’s September report, $195bn in customs duties were collected during the first three quarters of the year.Though, it appears that the cost of giving out $2,000 checks could easily surpass the amount actually collected from the tariffs. According to calculations, these payments would cost close to if not more than double the amount that has reportedly been generated so far.“If the cutoff is $100,000, 150M adults would qualify, for a cost near $300 billion,” wrote Erica York, vice-president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, on social media. “If kids qualify, that grows.”“The math gets worse accounting for the full budgetary impact of tariffs”, York added. “Adjusting for that, tariffs have raised $90 billion of net revenues compared to Trump’s proposed $300 billion rebate.”John Arnold, co-chair of Arnold Ventures, estimated that the dividend payments could cost as much as $513bn.As of October, consumers were paying an average effective tariff rate of nearly 18%, the highest since 1934, according to data from the Yale Budget Lab. Since the president introduced widespread tariffs on global trading partners in April, companies have passed part of those costs on to consumers.This isn’t the first time Trump has floated the idea of giving Americans stimulus checks based on revenue from his tariffs. In October, he said that he was considering offering Americans checks from the revenue, worth somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000. In July, the president again suggested that the government might consider tariff rebate checks.In February, he and tech mogul Elon Musk, who at the time was still advising the White House, said they were considering the idea of a $5,000 “dividend” check based on savings generated by the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge). These payments never came to be as the national deficit actually increased under Doge, and the amount cut from federal spending was significantly exaggerated.The US supreme court heard arguments on Wednesday on Trump’s sweeping global tariffs and appeared skeptical of their legality. More

    • 225 Shares60 Views

      in US Politics

      They flew to New York to help Mamdani – now they want to bring the hope to LA

      by

      While the excitement for mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani has radiated through New York, his win has also energized young activists across the country – particularly some in Los Angeles, who flew to the east coast to canvass for Mamdani and now want to bring their experiences westward.Standing near the poll site at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Neda Davarpanah – a screenwriter and actor based in Los Angeles – was inspired by Mamdani’s campaign for mayor so she flew out to New York in late October to canvass on the Upper East Side.Davarpanah had walked alongside the picket lines in Hollywood in 2023 as a newly minted Writers Guild of America member. Despite initial momentum, she felt the energy from the frontlines of the strikes had dissipated in the last year. That energy reignited when Mamdani entered the picture.“We felt so motivated and energized to help people in a city we don’t even live in because of the broader impact on the country,” she said.Many of the people interviewed are part of the 4,000 young members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Los Angeles chapter who felt inspired by Mamdani’s campaign and its national implications. Looking ahead, they want to bring the hope and lessons from field organizing back to Los Angeles.New York and Los Angeles have very different geographies and spreads of power. In Los Angeles, city council members’ elections tend to have more weight compared to a mayoral race. And given the DSA-LA chapter has endorsed five candidates so far in the city council and local school board elections, there are plenty of volunteer efforts for these hopefuls to work on in the coming year.View image in fullscreenLeslie Chang, who serves as the East San Gabriel Valley coordinator for Democratic Socialists of America, flew out during the primaries to canvass for Mamdani. She volunteered to canvass in Chinatown, where she spoke the language, and the Red Hook public housing projects.“These were tough conversations,” Chang said, noting residents felt left out in the city’s development. “They would say: look at the condition of this place that I live in. We are still waiting for repairs from the hurricane. Why should I give a shit who is running for office if my life hasn’t gotten better?”During her volunteer field training, Chang met two New York City council members who were vouching for Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. They told Chang to give out their phone numbers to start conversations with constituents.“I thought that was really powerful, because in almost all of the canvases that I do here [in Los Angeles], there isn’t that level of engagement,” she said. After canvassing, there was even a social event for volunteers to get to know one another and discuss what strategies worked best.Paul Zappia, an animator and illustrator who also serves in DSA-LA leadership, first met the mayor-elect in 2023 at the DSA national conference in Chicago, where Mamdani served as a keynote speaker. He flew out in late October to canvass with friends in Bushwick. At the beginning of his shift, the field lead asked why each volunteer had come out.“I shared with everybody that I was here from Los Angeles because the victory of Zohran Mamdani is bigger than New York City,” said Zappia, who attributes his involvement in politics to the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign.View image in fullscreenEven walking to lunch a few blocks away, he encountered another canvassing group. “It’s just a bunch of people who are there on their free time and want to spend a couple hours on their Saturday together with other people that also care about their fellow working class people. And it was just such a blast,” he said.The geography and public transportation layout of New York’s five boroughs makes it easier to canvas in groups. Zappia said he could feasibly knock on hundreds of doors in a one-block radius there. In Los Angeles, a street could be filled with mostly single-family homes. And with the abundance of Ring doorbell cameras, people can easily decline a visitor from the comfort of their couch.Clayton Ryles, 31, only canvassed for one afternoon in Manhattan’s Chinatown in late October and felt the contrast between Mamdani’s campaign and others. In September last year, Ryles canvassed for Kamala Harris with his fellow United Auto Worker labor organizers in Las Vegas. Knocks on doors yielded intrepid voters who were “upset and suspicious”. Despite many people being pro-union, they felt that their cost of living was too high under Joe Biden.“Nobody was excited about the election. Everybody was like this is being inflicted upon us. We have to decide one way or another. For Zohran, most of the people were enthusiastic about what could happen with his mayoral tenure,” Ryles said.Davarpanah agreed, pointing to the call and response levels of Mamdani’s speech when crowds could clearly repeat phrases such as “fast and free buses” and “universal childcare”.“You can name them. Harris 2024 was not successful in articulating a vision,” she said. “A policy vision that materially impacts your constituents is something every candidate should take to heart. This is what actually inspires people to get involved when they actually see what you’re going to deliver.”View image in fullscreenAcross social media, users have been making posts about how California, and Los Angeles specifically, needs a Mamdani.For Zappia, that means bringing back hope after a tough year that started with the Altadena wildfires and has continued with ICE raids, cutbacks to Snap benefits, and rising inflation, among many other difficulties.“People are just really looking for a sort of sign that things can turn around. In order to actually affect the change that we want to see, we have to first believe that we can actually do it,” he said.“And what happened in New York City is proof that it can be done, it’s proof that organized people can beat organized money.” More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Can Donald Trump really make an NFL team name its stadium after him?

      by

      Wait, Donald Trump is naming a stadium after himself?That’s if a well-sourced report from ESPN is to be believed. The US president has apparently let it be known to the ownership group of the Washington Commanders that he wants the team’s new stadium, which is scheduled to open in 2030, to take his name. “It’s what the president wants, and it will probably happen,” a senior White House official told ESPN.Presumably Trump, as a serial winner, has chosen the Commanders because they’re the best team in the NFL?Not quite. While the franchise was a dominant force in the 1980s, its last Super Bowl appearance came in the 1991 season. Although the Commanders’ fortunes were revived last season thanks to new owners and a brilliant young quarterback in Jayden Daniels, their form has slumped again this season.So why would want Trump want to be associated with them?Good point – what would Trump have in common with a team with a dubious history with women and minorities? Having said that, the move would give Trump two things he enjoys: power and revenge. The NFL is by far the most popular league in America, as well as the richest in the world – having his name on one of its stadiums will make sure he is even more prominent than he already is. It would also be a counterpunch against a league with which Trump has had a fractious relationship. In 1983 he bought a franchise in the rival United States Football League in an attempt to force a merger with the NFL, only to wind up sinking the younger league. In 2014, Trump was frustrated in his attempt to enter the NFL’s inner circle when his bid to buy the Buffalo Bills fell short. The clashes have continued into his presidency: during his first term, he described NFL players protesting against social injustice as “sons of bitches”. In his second term he has urged the Commanders to revert to their previous racist nickname and attacked the league’s decision to choose Trump critic Bad Bunny to play the Super Bowl’s halftime show this season.Will he succeed?This is a man who has already managed to summon up various Trump Towers, Trump Plaza, Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump Shuttle, Trump Vodka, Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Mortgage and the Donald J Trump Ballroom (to name but a few). Plus, Trump has become adept at getting billionaires to do what he wants of late, while he has found himself given a warmer greeting in the sports world in his second term as president. The route to naming the stadium is a little tricky but Trump has leverage. As president, he oversees the federal agencies responsible for environmental and land-use approvals at the proposed site of the team’s new stadium, so he could speed up, or slow down, the process if he chose to. “He has cards to play,” one source told ESPN. “He can make it very difficult to get this stadium built unless people align with him on the name.”It should also be noted that the Commanders will not be the ones to name the stadium. The proposed site sits on National Park Service land, and the District of Columbia Council will lease the stadium to the team. Again, Trump can lean on these bodies if he so chooses. “The team doesn’t have the authority. They can’t name the stadium on their own,” a source with direct knowledge of the process told ESPN. “The city would be involved, and the Park Service would be involved.”Are other NFL stadiums named after people?They are, but those people tend to be dead. Two of the most famous stadiums in the NFL – Green Bay’s Lambeau Field and Chicago’s Soldier Field – are tributes to people who have passed away. In Green Bay’s case, the stadium was renamed for the team’s founder and coach Earl “Curly“ Lambeau a few months after his death, while the stadium in Chicago was a tribute to US soldiers who had died in the first world war. Washington’s former stadium was named after a politician, but its name illustrates how it differed from Trump’s proposal: the Robert F Kennedy Memorial Stadium was renamed as a tribute to the US senator who was assassinated several months beforehand. It’s also notable that Lambeau and RFK did not lobby to get their names on the stadiums.So which stadiums are named after living world leaders?It should be noted that Trump would – probably – be out of power by the time the new Commanders stadium opens. But you can draw your own conclusions from living leaders who have their names on stadiums. Cameroon’s authoritarian leader has the Paul Biya Omnisports Stadium, India’s authoritarian leader has the Narendra Modi Stadium, Saudi Arabia’s authoritarian de facto leader has the proposed Prince Mohammed bin Salman Stadium, while Sierra Leone’s authoritarian leader had the Siaka Stevens National Stadium while he was in power. Hong Kong also went for the Queen Elizabeth Stadium during her reign, but she was a monarch and therefore completely different from Trump. More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      US flight cancellations rise as Sean Duffy warns travel could reduce to a ‘trickle’

      by

      Flight cancellations and delays are set to grow as airline passengers across the United States spent the weekend grappling with those issues at major airports nationwide after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandated a 4% reduction in air traffic in response to the ongoing federal government shutdown.If the shutdown continues, the FAA has instructed airlines to cut 6% of flights on Tuesday – and to do the same to 10% by 14 November. The transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, has warned that flight reductions could reach 20% if the shutdown persists, and on Sunday he predicted a “substantial” number of people in the US would be unable to celebrate the upcoming holidays with their families if the shutdown wasn’t resolved.“You’re going to see air travel be reduced to a trickle,” Duffy said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “We have a number of people who want to get home for the holidays. They want to see their family … Listen, many of them are not going to be able to get on an airplane because there are not going to be that many flights that fly if this thing doesn’t open back up.”The FAA’s requirement for airlines to cut 4% of daily flights at 40 “high-traffic” US airports began on Friday and represented an attempt to ease the mounting pressure on air traffic controllers. Like other federal employees, those controllers have not been paid for weeks amid the government shutdown, which has become the longest in history and reached its 40th day.“We are seeing signs of stress in the system, so we are proactively reducing the number of flights to make sure the American people continue to fly safely,” the FAA administrator, Bryan Bedford, said earlier this week. He also said that between 20% to 40% of controllers had not been showing up for work over the last several days.The first round of flight reductions led to around 800 cancellations on Friday and 1,460 on Saturday. As of 9am ET on Sunday, more than 1,000 flights across the US had been cancelled for the day, according to the flight tracking website FlightAware.On Sunday, Duffy told CNN that the US is “short air traffic controllers” and that he was “trying to get more air traffic controllers into the towers and be certified, but I am about a 1,000 to 2,000 controllers short”.Airlines were offering full refunds to customers for canceled flights.The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has warned that the shutdown was worsening the staffing shortages and said that many controllers “are working 10-hour days and six-day workweeks due to the ongoing staffing shortage, all without pay.“This situation creates substantial distractions for individuals who are already engaged in extremely stressful work,” they said. “The financial and mental strain increases risks within the National Airspace System, making it less safe with each passing day of the shutdown.”On Saturday, the union said it had delivered 1,600 handwritten letters from members to Congress calling for the shutdown to end.As the shutdown drags on, Democratic and Republican lawmakers continued to blame each other for the impasse – and for the flight disruptions.On Friday, the White House blamed Democrats for the cancellations and delays, saying they “are inflicting their man-made catastrophe on Americans just trying to make life-saving medical trips or get home for Thanksgiving”.On Saturday, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, accused the Republicans of “playing games” and said: “Instead of negotiating with Democrats, Republicans would rather let air-traffic controllers go unpaid, they’d rather ground flights, and they’d rather punish travelers.”For passengers, uncertainty remained about which flights would be canceled, and analysts warned that the disruption would likely intensify and spread beyond air travel if cancellations keep growing and reach into Thanksgiving week.The moderator of NBC’s Meet the Press, Kristen Welker, asked the Democratic US House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, if the shutdown would end before Thanksgiving. “I hope so,” Jeffries said.Asked the same question by Welker, Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma said “it absolutely needs to – it needs to open today if we can get it open”.Rental car companies reported a sharp increase in one-way reservations Friday, and some people simply canceled flights altogether.Some analysts have pointed out that there was the potential for higher prices in stores, as nearly half of US air freight is shipped in the bellies of passenger aircraft. There is also the possibility of higher shipping costs that get passed on to consumers, and further losses, from tourism to manufacturing, that will ripple through the economy if the slowdown continues.The Associated Press and Reuters contributed reporting More

    • 175 Shares71 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Godfather of the Trump presidency’: the direct through-line from Dick Cheney to Donald Trump

      by

      He spent the twilight of his career denouncing Donald Trump as a threat to the republic he loved. But Dick Cheney arguably laid the foundations of Trump’s authoritarian takeover of the United States.The former vice-president died on Monday aged 84. The White House lowered flags to half-mast in remembrance of him but without the usual announcement or proclamation praising the deceased.Cheney, who served under George W Bush for eight years, was one of the most influential and polarising vice-presidents in US history. Some critics said they would never forgive him for pushing the US to invade Iraq on a false pretext but suggested that his opposition to Trump offered a measure of redemption.Perhaps Cheney’s defining legacy, however, was the expansion of powers for a position that he never held himself: the presidency. Cheney used the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks as a pretext to assert a muscular executive authority that Trump now amplifies and exploits to challenge the system of checks and balances.Some commentators perceive a direct through-line from the Bush-Cheney administration’s policies – such as pre-emptive war, warrantless spying and the creation of novel legal categories like “enemy combatant” – to the Trump administration’s actions against immigrants, narco-traffickers and domestic political opponents.“Dick Cheney is the godfather of the Trump presidency,” said Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota. “Trump is unchained because Dick Cheney had been at war for half a century against the restraints put in place after Vietnam and Watergate. He believed that action was more important than following constitutional rules.”The debate over the balance of power between the White House, Congress and courts did not start with Cheney. In 1973, the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr published The Imperial Presidency, arguing that the executive branch had begun to resemble a monarch that often acted without the consent of Congress.However, by the time of the Ronald Reagan administration, young conservatives felt the presidency had become hamstrung. This sentiment culminated in a 1989 American Enterprise Institute volume titled The Fettered Presidency, articulating a doctrine to regain what they saw as constitutionally appropriate powers.As a young chief of staff in the Gerald Ford administration, Cheney experienced the fallout of the Watergate scandal. He concluded that a sceptical Congress, reacting to the abuses of Richard Nixon, had gone too far, leaving the presidency dangerously weakened.Jacobs said: “Dick Cheney took it as his mission to tear all that down. He saw the efforts to return accountability in the 70s after Watergate and Vietnam as profoundly and dangerously limiting presidential power. He talked openly about Congress self-aggrandising and warned that the country would face ruin.”Cheney believed that new constraints such as the War Powers Act, a 1973 law that limited the president’s power to commit US forces to conflict without congressional approval, had hobbled the executive, making it nearly impossible for a president to govern effectively, particularly in national security.In a 2005 interview, he said: “I do have the view that over the years there had been an erosion of presidential power and authority, that it’s reflected in a number of developments – the War Powers Act … I am one of those who believe that was an infringement upon the authority of the president.“A lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam, both, in the 70s served to erode the authority, I think, the president needs to be effective especially in a national security area.”Cheney’s ideas were formalised as the “unitary executive theory”, which asserts that the president should possess total and personal control over the entire executive branch. This effectively eliminates the independence of a vast array of government institutions and places millions of federal employees under the president’s authority to hire and fire at will.As Bush’s No 2, Cheney was dubbed “Darth Vader”. When America was attacked on 9/11 with nearly 3,000 people killed, the trauma created a political climate in which extraordinary measures were deemed necessary. Cheney turned a crisis into an opportunity to broaden executive power in the name of national security.He was the most prominent booster of the Patriot Act, the law enacted nearly unanimously after 9/11 that granted the government sweeping surveillance powers. He championed a National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping programme aimed at intercepting international communications of suspected terrorists in the US, despite concerns over its legality.The Bush administration also authorised the US military to attack enemy combatants acting on behalf of terrorist organisations, prompting questions about the legality of killing or detaining people without prosecution at sites such as Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.This doctrine is now being used by the Trump administration to justify deadly strikes on alleged drug-running boats in Latin America. It claims the US is engaged in “armed conflict” with drug cartels and has declared them unlawful combatants.Last month the Pentagon chief, Pete Hegseth, wrote on social media: “These narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than al-Qaida, and they will be treated the same. We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them.”In 2002 a set of legal memorandums known as the “torture memos” were drafted by John Yoo, deputy assistant attorney general, advising that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques might be legally permissible under an expansive interpretation of presidential authority during the “war on terror”.Jeremy Varon, author of Our Grief Is Not a Cry for War: The Movement to Stop the War on Terror, said: “That championed the unitary executive theory and then said as an explicit argument anything ordered by the commander in chief is by definition legal because the president is the sovereign.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“In its own day it was considered a dubious if not a highly contestable legal theory, but the Trump administration is almost pretending that it’s settled law and then using expansive ‘war on terror’ powers to create a war on immigrants, a war on narco traffickers and even potentially a war on dissenting Americans as they protest in the streets.”Varon, a history professor at the New School for Social Research in New York, added: “The great irony is that Trump represents, on the one hand, the repudiation of the neoliberal neocon globalists like Cheney and Bush that entangled America in forever wars. But now America First is being weaponised, making use of ‘war on terror’ powers to capture, brutalise, dehumanise and kill people without any sense of legal constraint.”As an architect of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Cheney pushed spy agencies to find evidence to justify military action. He asserted that then Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and had ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network. Officials used that to sell the war to members of Congress and the media, though that claim was later debunked.The government’s arguments for war fuelled a distrust among many Americans that resonates today with some in the current Republican party. But it did not lead to a significant pushback from Congress aimed at preventing future presidents making a similar mistake.The trend for executive power has been fuelled by an increasingly polarised and paralysed Congress, creating a vacuum that successive administrations, including those of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have filled with executive action, unwilling to cede powers once gained.The ultimate battle for the unitary executive theory is now being waged within the chambers of the supreme court. Recent rulings from the court’s conservative majority signal a shift away from longstanding precedents that have, for nearly a century, placed limits on presidential authority.Since taking office in January, Trump has unleashed a barrage of unilateral presidential actions. He has waged a campaign to remove thousands of career government workers from their posts and shut down entire federal agencies. His deployment of national guard troops to major US cities and attacks on law firms, media organisations and universities have earned comparison with autocrats around the world.Cheney himself did not approve. He became a severe and outspoken critic of Trump, arguing that the president’s actions went “well beyond their due bounds”, particularly regarding the integrity of the US electoral system. His daughter, Liz Cheney, became one of the most prominent opponents of Trump within the Republican party but eventually lost her seat in the House.Ken Adelman, a former US diplomat who knew Cheney since working with him the 1970s, was not surprised that he took a stand. He said: “Trump stood for everything Dick did not stand for and that was foreign policy, you support your friends and you oppose the totalitarians, strong alliances, strong defence and free trade.“He was very uncomfortable and then finally turned and absolutely opposed Donald Trump with every fibre of his bone, which shows that conservatives can oppose Trump and should oppose Trump because he’s not conservative and he’s not decent and he’s not honourable.”Some commentators contend that while Cheney operated to enhance the power of the institution of the presidency for policy and national security reasons, Trump has leveraged that power for self-aggrandisement, pushing beyond boundaries that Cheney himself recognised.Robert Schmuhl, a professor emeritus of American studies at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, said: “Clearly in his time as vice-president, he pushed that envelope almost as far as anyone could. But the distinction is that Cheney was trying to enhance the power of the presidency for policy and security reasons, while Donald Trump seems to be pushing for greater power in the presidency that also has a personal dimension for him.”Others agree that, along with the rhymes between Cheney and Trump, there are significant differences. Jake Bernstein, co-author of Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency, said: “You can draw a line between Cheney and Trump. Trump has taken that to the max; as they say in Spın̈al Tap, he’s turned it to 11. It’s a qualitative difference.“Yes, Cheney believed that power had tilted too much towards Congress and had to go back to the executive and certainly believed that, particularly in issues of war-making, the executive should be completely unfettered. He also understood a lot of this balance between Congress and the executive was based on norms that were elastic and could be stretched in one direction or another.“But he was absolutely at heart an institutionalist and he didn’t want to break those norms. He didn’t want to destroy those institutions. He would have been appalled by the neutering of Congress that’s going on under this current Trump administration. Basically Trump is president and speaker of the House at the moment, and that would have offended Cheney.” More

    • 200 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s assault on voting intensifies as midterms loom: ‘a wholesale attack on free and fair elections’

      by

      A year out from the 2026 midterms, with Republicans feeling the blows from a string of losses in this week’s elections, Donald Trump and his allies are mounting a multipronged attack on almost every aspect of voting in the United States and raising what experts say are troubling questions about the future of one of the world’s oldest democracies.While Democratic leaders continue to invest their hopes in a “blue wave” to overturn Republican majorities in the House and Senate next year, Trump and some prominent supporters have sought to discredit the possibility that Republicans could lose in a fair fight and are using that premise to justify demands for a drastically different kind of electoral system.This is not the first time Trump has questioned the credibility of US elections – he did it almost as vigorously in 2016 and 2024, when he won his bids for the White House, as he did in 2020, when he did not – but now the president’s confidants are threatening emergency powers to seize control of a process over which presidents ordinarily have no control.Trump’s former chief political adviser, Steve Bannon, is urging him to get the elections “squared away” even before the voters have a chance to weigh in. Former legal advisers have suggested the electoral system is in itself an emergency justifying extraordinary intervention, possibly including federal agents and the military stationed outside polling stations.When Bannon was asked whether voters might find this intimidating, he replied: “You’re damn right.”View image in fullscreenThe administration itself, meanwhile, is moving on multiple fronts. Most visibly, Trump is pressuring Republican-run states to redraw their congressional maps outside the usual once-a-decade schedule and lock in as many additional safe Republican seats as possible.Texas has gerrymandered an additional five GOP seats, Ohio two, and Missouri and North Carolina one each, and other states are considering whether to follow suit. (California voters, in response, have just approved a map promising five additional Democratic seats.)Meanwhile, the justice department has abandoned its decades-long defense of voting rights, and in some instances – notably, a pending supreme court case that risks erasing a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act – has switched to the side arguing against protecting minority rights. The Department of Homeland Security has slashed funding and cut staff at an agency dedicated to protecting elections from physical and cybersecurity threats.The administration is also demanding states hand over sensitive voter data and purge voter rolls, despite grave concerns about this deterring or disenfranchising large numbers of legitimate voters. In an executive order issued in March, the White House said it wants voters to produce birth certificates or passports as proof of eligibility. It wants the vote count to be over on election night, disregarding provisional and late mail-in ballots. In fact, Trump would like to do away with mail-in balloting altogether.View image in fullscreenIf all that doesn’t suffice – if Democrats still threaten to prevail next year – the administration has a multi-agency infrastructure set up to trumpet allegations of voter fraud and threaten legal action, including possible criminal prosecution of poll workers, election administrators, political adversaries and individual voters. “We’re going to come after the people … who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,” Kash Patel, now FBI director, vowed in the run-up to the 2024 race. (No court has ever substantiated Trump’s claims that Biden was not the rightful winner in 2020.) “Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.”Another possibility is that Trump will seek to wrest control of voting machines from state and local officials, as he came close to doing five years ago.“Those of us engaged in this fight are witnessing a wholesale attack on free and fair elections,” said Marc Elias, a prominent election lawyer involved in more than 60 election-related suits. “From executive orders to budget cuts, the Trump administration is undermining election security and promoting voter disenfranchisement.”Perhaps the biggest underlying fear is that Trump has no interest in democracy and aims, ultimately, to destroy it. “I don’t think Donald Trump wants another election,” California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, opined as Trump invoked legally questionable emergency powers to deploy national guard troops to US cities.Administration officials insist their concern is to prevent cheating by the Democrats and improve electoral security. But on the campaign trail last year, Trump told evangelical Christian supporters they would need to vote for him only one more time. “Four more years, you know what, it’ll be fixed,” he said. “We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.”Whatever the ultimate goal, the question uppermost in the minds of many voting rights advocates is how much Trump and his allies will be able to pull off over the next 12 months. The president has almost no power over elections under the constitution, and much of what the administration has advocated is being challenged in court. It is, for example, a federal crime to deploy troops at any election site. Voter intimidation of any kind is similarly prohibited.For that reason, advocates and lawyers say, the risk is less about what Trump is allowed to do and more about what he can persuade people to do anyway.View image in fullscreen“Donald Trump is a marketing machine, and what he is doing right now is marketing power he does not have,” said Justin Levitt, a lawyer who served as a senior adviser on voting rights in the Biden administration. He described Trump’s March executive order, with its demands for strict voter identification procedures and new voting equipment standards, as just “a piece of paper with a scrawly signature on it”. (A federal judge recently blocked the order, saying the president was improperly asserting powers the constitution assigned to Congress and the states.)“It’s an attempt to fool people,” Levitt added. “Trump’s primary power is the power we give him when he asserts he is in control of everything, and we believe him.”Jasleen Singh, a lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice, has no doubt Trump is “directing, dismantling and weaponizing agencies” with the ultimate goal of “election subversion”. But she, too, said it was important not to give in to the force of Trump’s personality.“The law is on our side,” she said. “We have the right to vote. We have the right to participate … Part of this is not letting voters forget the power that they have.”The White House had no specific comment about Trump’s actions or intentions. Deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson limited herself to a crack about “Newscum” – Trump’s favored term of abuse for the California governor – and his “doomed-to-fail” (but unannounced) presidential campaign.Resisting Trump’s pull is proving easier said than done. On a variety of seemingly settled issues – from district maps to the grace period granted for postal ballots to reach their destination – Republican state legislatures have either reversed their own decisions or are considering doing so because of instructions from the White House. “States are under enormous pressure to do what they can to pacify this incredibly vindictive administration,” said Elisabeth Frost, a partner with Elias’s election law group.Election administrators have expressed widespread fears of doxing and physical threats, and many hundreds have quit their jobs under the pressure. The Maga movement has encouraged supporters to run for election offices to influence the process from the inside.In a worst-case scenario, voting rights activists say, Trump would win the rhetorical battle and convince large numbers of Americans that voter rolls are corrupted and ineligible voters are casting ballots in large numbers. He could thus muster support for the emergency intervention his allies are pushing for.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe administration certainly seized on this week’s elections to keep beating the rhetorical drum. The justice department sent federal monitors to California and New Jersey, which some local officials saw as intimidation. Trump called the California ballot initiative a “giant scam”. And New Jersey’s US attorney, Alina Habba, put out a video vowing to prosecute a long list of virtually nonexistent election-related crimes.View image in fullscreenExperts still said they thought that invoking a national emergency remained a remote possibility. More likely, they said, was a continuation of the pressure campaign to suppress votes and cast doubt on results Trump does not like. They expected the administration to continue to push legal limits first and deal with any blowback from the courts after.“Everyone is seeing the polls,” Frost, the Elias Law Group lawyer, said. “Literally none of their policies are popular, so they are terrified of this election. The more Trump can say that the vote count can’t be trusted, the more it serves his purpose … Either voters will be repressed by laws or they will be repressed by misinformation and made-up bombastic nonsense.”Marpheen Chann, a Cambodian American advocate in Maine, has seen first-hand how pressure from the Trump administration – and, in particular, demands for sensitive personal data in the state’s voting records – has deterred community members from participating next November.“Personally, I’m concerned because I’m politically active. I’m a Democrat,” Chann said. “Will I end up on a list?”What is true for him, a community leader with a law degree, runs even deeper through the membership of his organization, Khmer Maine. Many either experienced the 1970s Cambodian genocide first-hand or have been traumatized by it across generations, making them particularly sensitive to any hint of authoritarian behavior. “The fact that the federal government is trying to break into our voting data and violate our privacy definitely does not feel good for the community,” Chann said.Top of mind is the fear that immigration enforcement agents might seek to use inconsistencies in the data – a missing birth certificate, or a mismatch between a birth name and a name on a passport, both of which are issues for Chann – as a pretext to pursue even naturalized citizens for arrest and deportation. Regardless of how justified those fears are, Chann said they are vivid enough to scare people away from civic engagement. “It makes it really hard for me to get people participating and making their voices heard,” he said. “If they make their voices heard, they feel they’re going to be targeted.”In some parts of the country, Republican state legislatures have needed no pressure from the administration to suppress votes – they have been tightening voter ID requirements, cutting early voting hours, restricting voter registration drives and reducing the number of polling stations for the past 20 years. In other places, though, they have done Trump’s bidding even though it offers them little or no partisan advantage.Kansans, for example, recently voted to get rid of a three-day window for mail-in ballots to be counted after election day, even though the mail is notoriously slow there and mail-in voting is popular in rural areas, where voters tend to be conservative.Frost, who is part of a lawsuit to reinstate the three-day window, agreed that Trump’s personal animus against mail-in voting was not necessarily aligned with Republican partisan interests. Still, she saw a political advantage for Trump in demonizing parts of the electoral system.“The same way he’s been painting the Oval Office with gaudy gold adornments,” Frost said, “he’s been trying to pre-paint all these conspiracy theories so if the election doesn’t go the way he wants, he and his allies can point to the sea of litigation they’ve triggered, or they can point back to the March executive order, and say these were things that should have been done to begin with.”To counter the chaos and the conspiracies, voting rights groups have most often turned to lawsuits and have been heartened to see lower courts, at least, blocking crucial parts of the Trump agenda. Increasingly, they have also seen judges reprimand political appointees arguing on behalf of the justice department following a wave of career lawyers being fired or resigning.“The quality of lawyering they are doing now is, in a word, garbage,” Levitt, the former Biden official, said. “You’re going to see the [justice department] lose a lot of cases, and these are cases they should lose.”View image in fullscreenIn the voter data lawsuits, for example, government filings have repeated far-right talking points – and the language of Trump’s executive order – about voter rolls being vulnerable to “illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error”. That assertion flies in the face of mainstream research going back decades that shows it is passingly rare for ineligible voters to cast a ballot.“This tells you a lot about what the [justice department] is willing to endorse,” Frost said. “There are not going to be arguments too wild as we get deeper into the election cycle and we start to see other conspiracy theories float to the top.”Chann, the Cambodian American advocate, worried that facts and the law would not be enough to protect voting rights, especially in immigrant communities. “Even though people I trust in local and state government are saying they’re doing what they can,” he said, “that doesn’t give me any consolation when it comes to whether the federal government will obey its own election and voting laws.”Still, Chann acknowledged that legal avenues were the best hope for holding on to democracy, and he did not hesitate in coming forward as a named defendant seeking to keep the federal government at bay in a lawsuit over Maine’s voter data.“Congress isn’t going to do anything, and the executive branch is overreaching,” he said. “We need to make our last stand in the courts.” More

    • 150 Shares93 Views

      in US Politics

      A year on from Trump’s victory, resistance is everywhere | Rebecca Solnit

      by

      A young white woman in yoga clothes berating masked ICE agents in a parking lot this spring. A pope speaking up again and again for immigrants. Furious judges dressing down the Trump administration and ruling against it time after time after time, in response to the blizzard of lawsuits filed by human rights and environmental groups, states, cities and individuals. A senator speaking nonstop for 25 hours and another flying to El Salvador to find out what happened to his kidnapped constituent. The biggest day of protest in US history as an estimated 7 million people showed up for No Kings on 18 October in small towns and red counties as well as big blue cities.Weekly protests at Tesla salesrooms earlier this year that succeeded in damaging the brand, depressing global sales and prompting Tesla CEO Elon Musk to retreat from his Doge slash-and-burn project. Federal workers resisting sometimes merely by adhering to law, truth and fact, and sometimes by speaking out as whistleblowers or in protests, as with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention staff who staged a walkout in late August in solidarity with senior staff who’d just resigned in protest against the health and human services secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr’s anti-vaccine policies.Extraordinary solidarity organizing for and with immigrants, refugees and the people targeted for looking like them on the streets, in the neighborhoods of Chicago, at Home Depot parking lots, around schools, in courtrooms. Democratic state attorneys general suing again and again, independently and together, and Illinois and California’s governors spending a lot of time ripping into Trump. Airports refusing to play the homeland security secretary Kristi Noem’s partisan-propaganda video about the congressional shutdown. Seven major universities refusing to sign a contract with the administration promising financial incentives for compromising academic freedom. This is some of the resistance to the Trump administration and its policies we’ve seen since 20 January, and it’s worth surveying on the anniversary of the election.When people tell me that there’s been no resistance to the Trump administration, I wonder if they’re expecting something that looks like a guerrilla revolution pushing out the government in one fell swoop or just aren’t paying attention, because there has, in fact, been a tremendous amount and variety of resistance and opposition and it’s mattered tremendously. When will it be enough is a question that can only be answered if and when all this is over and we find out what comes next. Another source of disappointment seems to come from the expectation that there will be some sort of obvious and logical building up toward regime change, rather than the reality that tipping points in particular and histories in general are unpredictable animals.Resistance is everywhere, both geographically and in terms of the constituencies participating: civil society and civil servants; human rights, climate and environmental groups (who in many cases had plans in place before the election and hit the ground running when the new administration came in); religious leaders and institutions, elected officials at all levels from city councils to the US Senate, the military, lawyers and judges, educators and students, librarians, of course, medical professionals, journalists, editors and publishers, people in the arts. Of course there’s been shameful collaboration, submission and silence from many figures in most of these constituencies as well. It has been striking that the most wealthy and theoretically most powerful have, in this crisis, often been the first to surrender. It’s non-elites who have stood on principle even when it means taking risks.It wasn’t clear beforehand what the focal point of opposition would be, and the early protests against Doge and the Tesla Takedown actions were in response to the administration and Musk’s attacks on the federal government. Though activists and organizations are defending everything from renewable energy to reproductive rights, the heart of active resistance is now solidarity with those under attack by the border patrol, ICE and the other agencies assigned to terrorize, brutalize, kidnap and violate rights across the country. This manifests in myriad ways from volunteers striving to protect immigrants and refugees when they show up for their immigration-court appointments to neighbors walking kids to school when their parents are afraid to leave home to the lively protests in front of ICE in Portland, Oregon, and the extraordinary neighborhood activism across Los Angeles, and then Washington DC, and then Chicago.As Sarah Conway reported in New York Magazine: “In their free time, or, in some cases, by actively taking time off work, everyday Chicagoans are building rapid-response teams to keep eyes on the streets and follow the movements of federal agents. Some pass out whistles in bars and laundromats; others keep vigil outside Home Depots and taquerías. Activists have begun locating agents’ suburban hotels and hosting noisy protests outside. Some take shifts patrolling their neighborhoods on foot, in cars, and on bikes to alert neighbors to the presence of federal agents and to document their aggressive tactics and arrests.”The Catholic church has shown up, from a midwestern church that put cardboard silhouettes in the pews to represent members of the congregation afraid to attend to Chicago-born Pope Leo XIV. The new pope, seemingly in direct opposition to loud-about-his-Catholic-conversion JD Vance, has repeatedly spoken up for immigrants and the poor. It’s not just Catholics, though: ministers and rabbis have participated in protests, and more than 200 Chicago-area clergy signed a letter titled Jesus is Being Tear Gassed at Broadview. Many cities have reaffirmed their statuses as sanctuary cities and their policies of not cooperating with Ice.Miles Bruner, in resigning from his job as a Republican fundraiser, wrote in the Bulwark: “I quit the Republican party and my job as an accomplice to the party in the throes of an authoritarian cult.” Marine Col Doug Krugman explained his resignation from the military in the Washington Post: “Instead of trying to work within the Constitution, or to amend it, President Trump is testing how far he can ignore it.” The admiral who resigned abruptly from the navy’s southern command last month did not give a reason, but it was widely assumed to be in response to the murderous attacks on small boats in the Caribbean. The veterans group About Face launched a campaign on the Fourth of July to support military members refusing illegal orders and encouraging them to do so.Boycotts have always been a powerful tactic of nonviolent resistance. The Tesla, Target and Disney boycotts all had an effect, and Indivisible has just launched one against Spotify for running Ice recruitment ads. The Disney boycott seems to be why late-night host Jimmy Kimmel got reinstated after being pushed out for making mild remarks after far-right activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Often acts of submission to the administration provoke their own acts of resistance, as when individual lawyers left some of the big law firms that caved to the administration early this year. A lot of journalists have left the Washington Post and other publications that have shifted right to go independent, and small, alternative and independent media have been a vital part of keeping the public informed and engaged.Indivisible has grown hugely in chapters and membership since the new administration took over, 50501 was founded soon after the inauguration to organize more activism and a number of other local and national resistance organizations have sprung up. Trump has called the resistance and progressives more generally “the enemy from within”. But the enemies of human rights, the rule of law, the balance of powers and the constitution, of voting rights and fair elections, of science and history, are in the partially demolished White House. If this country has a future, it’s in the streets, the courts, the movements and the continued exercise of free speech and freedom of assembly against this administration.

      Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. She is the author of Orwell’s Roses and co-editor with Thelma Young Lutunatabua of the climate anthology Not Too Late: Changing the Climate Story from Despair to Possibility More